Agostino.prastaro
Recent edits to Navier–Stokes existence and smoothness
edit
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to the Navier–Stokes existence and smoothness article. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. Thank you! Technopat (talk) 23:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Regarding Talk:Poincaré conjecture
editWP is not for self-promotion. Such material is subject to immediate reversion, including talk pages. See WP:TPO and WP:PROMO. Choor monster (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
June 2015
edit
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Poincaré conjecture. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -- Orduin Discuss 20:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- See the ANI discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Agostino.prastaro using Talk pages as a forum. You may respond there if you wish. Some editors have claimed you are misusing Wikipedia to promote your own ideas. Another observes that you have never posted on a user talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- The comments expressed at ANI suggest that the next logical step is to block you indefinitely from Wikipedia. There is no sign that you will wait for confirmation by regular mathematical authorities that you have solved all these famous problems. EdJohnston (talk) 12:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
On the Choor Monster's vandalism against Prástaro's 'Smooth Poincare' Conjecture-talk
editDear EdJohnston
in the following I answer to Choor Monster's notifications about:
1) 'Navier-Stokes'.
- He refers to an action in the 'article' that never I have made.
In this link my contribution has been in the section talk. However, since my proof of the Navier-Stokes problem has been published in mathematical journals and research-books, it should be useful to post also in the article a link to these works.
2) 'Poincare' Conjecture'.
- My talk, deleted by 'Choor Monster', concerns an important subject strictly related to the Poincare' conjecture, that has been also recalled in the index at the point 'Smooth Poincare' Conjecture'. Since this last particular conjecture has been recently solved by A. Prástaro (2010), in my opinion it should be very important for the reader to include here all information about such a subject. It is very strange to claim that this my talk is for my self-promotion ! If this criterion should be accepted, then almost all contributions in Wikipedia should be considered for self-promotion. Instead this Choor Monster's claim is not a serious approach to classify contributions in Wikipedia. In fact, each user gives to Wikipedia contributions according to his personal specialization and research-contributions ! It is worth to underline that in my talk I quoted also some works where I generalized the smooth Poincare' conjecture to the category of quantum (super) manifolds.
All such researches are published on international journals or book series in Mathematics, therefore accepted, after peer reviews, by international editorial committees. It is an injury to claim that these works are a simple self-promotion.
Wikipedia stated that personal attachs must be avoided ... I agree. But personal attachs are allowed to Choor Monster ...
- Therefore I consider definitively unacceptable to erase my talk on the 'Smooth Poincare' Conjecture', and I invite you to repost it soon, otherwise I should conclude that an unjustified vandalism has been produced against my quoted talk.
My best regards. Agostino Prástaro (Agostino.prastaro (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC))
Possible block
editPlease see my offer at ANI. You can avoid a block for disruptive editing if you will agree to refrain from mentioning or citing your own work on any page of Wikipedia. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Since I posted my offer at ANI there have been a series of posts by IPs in that thread. My assumption is that those IPs are you, so I conclude that you aren't accepting my offer. If that's the case, I'll proceed with the block shortly. To be specific, I assume that all the IPs in this ANI thread (permanent link) are actually you. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston: Is there a reason you didn't proceed with a block? It would certainly seem to have been earned. BMK (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Blocked for using Wikipedia to promote your mathematical work
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Your activity on Wikipedia amounts to Disruptive editing. You are promoting your own works without regard for whether they are a net benefit to the encyclopedia, and without waiting for any support from others. You seem to think you have some kind of right of publicity here. You do not take any notice of the opinions of other editors that your own work doesn't belong in these articles or on the talk pages. I offered you a way out if you would promise to refrain, but you didn't take it. The discussion of your edits was at this ANI thread (permanent link). You can still be unblocked if you will accept the offer given previously. You can agree to refrain from mentioning or citing your own work on any page of Wikipedia, including talk pages and noticeboards.
Irrespective of any unblock negotiation, you must not edit regular Wikipedia pages under any account or IP unless this block is lifted. See WP:GAB for general advice on contesting a block. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia
editthe block of my account is in conflict with instructions that I received just from Wikipedia. Really two years ago I asked where I can post my remarks and information about some Wikipedia-article that intersects my mathematical research. This information was that to this purpose there is the Wikipedia-talk section. In fact I followed this information to post some my talks. Please consider that all such my talks concern remarks that are supported by published works, open to any interested reader. So that, even if talk-section could contain opinions different from ones expressed in the main article, my talks always give complementary information, well supported by published works. Well ! With this respect, one cannot accept the opinion that now gives EdJhonston, that in this way I do self-promotion ! Really when the subject concerns published works, the diffusion of such an information cannot be considered more self-promotion, but a regular diffusion of news whose consensus has been given, at least from some serious journals and editors. On the other hand, it is ridiculous to require, as made by EdJhonston, that before to write a Wikipedia-talk I should made a referendum between mathematicians, asking to friends to sign my talks !.... I am a mathematician, I produce mathematics, not referendum. However, the point is the following. Does it is true that discussions on Wikipedia-articles can be made in the Wikipedia-talk section according to the instructions that I received ? Whether this is lawful why someone block my Wikipedia account ?
My best regards,
Agostino Prástaro _________________________ Prof. Dr. Agostino Prástaro University of Roma La Sapienza & Roma Sapienza Foundation
(Agostino.prastaro (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC))
- Please see WP:GAB to make a valid unblock request. We do not cover everything published in a journal in Wikipedia. There are rules to decide which content is sufficiently important, and you don't seem to be familiar with them. See WP:POL for our policies. EdJohnston (talk) 01:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Agostino.prastaro (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The block of my account is in conflict with instructions that I received just from Wikipedia. Really two years ago I asked where I can post my remarks and information about some Wikipedia-article that intersects my mathematical research. This information was that to this purpose there is the Wikipedia-talk section. In fact I followed this information to post some my talks. Please consider that all such my talks concern remarks that are supported by published works, open to any interested reader. So that, even if talk-section could contain opinions different from ones expressed in the main article, my talks always give complementary information, well supported by published works. Well ! With this respect, one cannot accept the opinion that now gives EdJhonston, that in this way I do self-promotion ! Really when the subject concerns published works, the diffusion of such an information cannot be considered more self-promotion, but a regular diffusion of news whose consensus has been given, at least from some serious journals and editors. On the other hand, it is ridiculous to require, as made by EdJhonston, that before to write a Wikipedia-talk I should made a referendum between mathematicians, asking to friends to sign my talks !.... I am a mathematician, I produce mathematics, not referendum. Furthermore, to allow that some 'Administrator' can decide the importance of a talk to be accepted is against the freedom of any discussion. In the Talk-section must be accepted also different opinions, otherwise Wikipedia is not more a free-contribution encyclopedia, but a lobby-submitted encyclopedia. This last interpretation should damage its image. In such a case it should be impossible to continue to seriously consider this encyclopedia.
By conclusion, the point is the following. Does it is true that discussions on Wikipedia-articles can be freely made in the Wikipedia-talk section according to the instructions that I received ? Whether this is lawful why someone block my Wikipedia account ?
My best regards,
Agostino Prástaro
- Prof. Dr. Agostino Prástaro University of Roma La Sapienza & Roma Sapienza Foundation)
[email address removed]
Decline reason:
No, Wikipedia talk pages are not for what you think. They are solely for the purpose of discussing improvements to the article; they are in particular not places to promote your own work, no matter what your credentials are. See WP:TALK for the talk page guidelines. --jpgordon::==( o ) 14:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Your only purpose on Wikipedia seems to be to spread your own research. If all you write about is your own work, then yes, that will be seen as self-promotion. There are lots of other ways for you to improve Wikipedia's coverage of mathematical topics if you are interested in helping Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Agostino.prastaro (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
No ! This accusal cannot be applied to me ! I often quoted Wikipedia articles, written by other authors, in my works ... It is easy to verify by looking in some recent my posts on arXiv. I did not use Wikipedia to promote my works ... This is a completely false statement ! Of course in my talks to articles intersecting my research, I necessarily quote some my works, to discuss about some subjects contained therein. (Agostino.prastaro (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2015 (UTC))
Decline reason:
What Mr Potto said below. Max Semenik (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Hi. I think you are missing the point. It may be that you "often quoted Wikipedia articles, written by other authors, in my works", but that's really not relevant. The point is that Wikipedia talk pages are not forums for you to present your own work, they are only for the purposes of working towards improving the articles. In fact, Wikipedia does not offer a forum for presenting original work at all (see WP:OR). If you wish to present your own work, you'll need to do that elsewhere, and it is not eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia until it gets significant coverage in reliable sources (as described in WP:RS). Mr Potto (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Agostino.prastaro (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I report what you emphasized under (see WP:OR) to justify the block of my account. 'Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. (This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages.) '
I bolded two parts relevant for 'the point'. From both one can see that such rules cannot be applied to my talks since these are supported by published works, and in any case this policy does not apply to talk pages.
Today I have also seen that a my talk to the article 'Quantum Gravity' has been deleted, by confusing my talk with another one that is neither signed, that instead remains !
In my opinion it appears clear that the block of my account violates the same general Wikipedia rules. Agostino.prastaro (talk) 20:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
your block reason is as follows "Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia: using Wikipedia as a vehicle for promoting your own mathematical work." From your request, it appears that you do not understand why this is a problem, and in this context, I'm declining your request to be unblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 20:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
.
Agostino.prastaro (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Does not exist a place in the Wikipedia's policy where it is stated that in the Talk-section an user cannot quote his published works. Instead it is stated just the opposite: I report again what you emphasized under (see WP:OR) to justify the block of my account. 'Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. (This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages.) '
This means that there is not self-promotion by quoting user's works in talk-section. (Agostino.prastaro (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC))
Decline reason:
Due to your persistent refusal to listen, your right to file unblock requests has been revoked to prevent time wasting. You might still appeal via UTRS or BASC, however the result will be the same unless you promise to avoid self-promotion. Max Semenik (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.